“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

—-

Plato

============

“A person who can think differently and truly on his feet will always find it difficult to sit and fit as an employee in a workplace, for his attitude & approach towards the work will often hit the ego of most co-workers.”

―

Anuj Somany

===========

“If u want to work in Corporate, then u should know how to play Chess.”

―

honeya

=============

Ok.

I was asked recently about a past job I had where I had struggled to be successful. After hemming and hawing a little <I have never really been sure what hemming or hawing was> I answered “the position required a dedicated navigator with navigator skills and I am a sledgehammer with some navigator vision.”

<note: I didn’t understand that until actually into the role & assumed responsibility>

Yeah.

I am a sledge hammer. Always have been and I assume I always will be.

I respect navigators but they are too slow for my tastes, far too often worried about political correctness and always too skewed toward what is important politically versus ‘what is the right thing to do.’

Ok.

Let me explain navigators and sledge hammers.

In business, there are just some people who see office politics <which all organizations have whether you like it or not> and they have the skills and vision to navigate them to get shit done <they also tend to benefit personally with this skill>.

In business, there are just some people who want to get the right shit done and believe if it is right then … well … it is better to just say ‘damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead’ rather than screw around with navigating people’s feelings and politics.

Now.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes a navigator isn’t more effective and that a navigator, which is tightly associated with someone who can play office politics, is always a corporate whore.

That also doesn’t mean that there aren’t navigators with good moral compasses because there are a shitload of navigator managers who are skilled organizational politicians who do not showcase questionable behavior or even distastefully ‘sucking-up’ behavior.

Pretty much any leader worth a shit takes a realistic approach to managing around workplace politics. This does not mean they are ‘political’, per se, or want to play the political game … it’s just they understand that you have to navigate competing interests, whatever resources may be available, the nuances of what is viewed as authority <and who has the authority … which is most typically “enough to hang yourself’>, the bendable organizational rules and whatever information is available.

And, to be clear, the best of the navigators have a sledge hammer in their tool box <and use it on occasion>.

And, to be clear, the best of the sledge hammers have either some navigational skills or, at minimum, navigational vision <i.e., they can ‘see’ the politics and organizational rubble affecting your path>.

Me?

I am a sledgehammer. I like to get shit done.

Always have and always will.

Okay. I like getting smart shit done. And I really like getting smart ‘right’ shit done.

The nuance between that stuff is clear … if all I did was get shit done, smart & right being set aside, politics and navigating would become almost irrelevant. Because then you are simply a doer <not a thinker or a thinker/doer>.

But even as a sledge hammer you recognize that whether you hate it, admire it, practice it or avoid it, office politics is a fact of life in any organization. And, like it or not, it’s something that you need to understand to insure not only your professional success but the success of the good shit you want to do.

Yeah. Sure.

“Politics” certainly has a negative connotation. It most often refers to strategies people use to seek advantage at the expense of others or the greater good.

In this context, it often adversely affects the working environment and relationships within it.

<and sledge hammers abhor this type of politics bullshit>

I hesitate to suggest there could ever be something called “good office politics” but some organizational expert asshats believe that is the kind of crap you do which helps you fairly promote yourself and your ideas <they call it networking and stakeholder management … I call it the ‘necessary bullshit you just have to suck up and do in order to get good shit done’>.

As a sledge hammer I realized that there were some things that a navigator was good at and I should learn if I wanted to be a more effective sledgehammer.

About the only thing I truly value in a navigator is “social astuteness.” This is the ability to read and anticipate situations – allows you to prepare, adapt and tailor your behavior based on the people and conditions around you.

In my words this is being aware of the people & what they believe and the situation organizationally.

Let’s just call this “context” <at least that is how a sledgehammer views it>.

Now.

Being aware is different than acting upon it. Being aware meant that it prepared me, and my groups, to manage the carnage or consequences of slamming your way straight thru a maze.

As a sledge hammer it pays to understand the real map, or maze, of the organization. Internal politics, more often than not, has little to do with the real organizational chart they give you when you sign on.

Someone outlined this important crap to be aware of really well:

Who are the real influencers?

Who has authority but doesn’t exercise it?

Who is respected?

Who champions or mentors others?

Who is “the brains behind the organization”?

As a sledge hammer I realized there were absolutely some things that were in my control as I bashed my way through the middle of the maze getting to where I believed an idea, or the business at large should go.

But, as a sledge hammer, I also recognized I needed to manage my own behavior <this lesson took some time … and learned thru some painful trial & error>. Through watching others and some painful trial & error you learn what works in your organization’s culture.

But you learn really fast … as in REALLY fast … that as a sledge hammer you invest exactly 0% of your time and 0 energy on:

Gossip & spreading rumors: you learn to shut up and even when you hear something you wait and assess the credibility

interpersonal conflicts – you avoid “like/dislike people” discussions and certainly do not get sucked into arguments

Integrity above all: this is a sledge hammer mantra … be professional, do not cut corners, do things right and always remember the organization’s interests

No complaining: a sledgehammer accepts it will not be easy and you don’t whine about the tough path you have chosen <because it is the path you have chosen>

Confidence: a sledgehammer is assertive not arrogant, proactive maybe edging on aggressive without ever sneaking into aggressiveness

Never personal: a sledge hammer has only one thing in focus … the good of the organization <it is NEVER personal>

Transparency: assume everything is gonna be seen anyway so you may as well share it all

Look.

Here is what I know.

……… whoa … did you guys do THAT ………..

When you are a sledgehammer and everything goes right it is not only the best in the world for you but organizationally everyone kind of goes “whoa, that was something.”

<which is kind of cool and makes it all worthwhile>

I will admit.

Being a sledgehammer is a lonelier way to conduct business than being a navigator. It isn’t that you are not liked nor does it mean you aren’t viewed as a team member at the table but navigators, I tend to believe, are just more social human beings & employees.

But sledge hammers have one thing in common … we are all homesick for an organization where we can not think about anything but getting good smart shit done.

This is about the impossible versus what is possible … and the absurd discussions that take place around it.

Let me begin where I will end <just in case you don’t want to read everything in between>.

Impossible versus possible is the ultimate Life conundrum <at least for today’s piece>.

The ‘let me tell you what is possible’people are most strident in identifying ‘the possible’ utilizing something called “an objective knowledge approach” <‘the world as it really is’>. They seek to provide their beliefs from ‘nowhere & everywhere’ or maybe better said … by providing perspective by looking at it from all angles. Well. Someone named Donna Haraway called this “the God trick.” In other words … it is impossible.

Oops.

In order to explain and clearly define ‘what is possible’ <therefore by doing so … by a process of elimination … defining a set of ‘what is impossible’> someone needs to … well … do the impossible.

Yikes.

Now there is a Life, and business, truth to ponder.

Ok.

With all that senseless nonsense, or was that serious nonsense, out of the way … let me move forward.

If you ever want to have a seriously nonsensical discussion with someone just bring up ‘impossible.’ And as soon as impossible is brought up you may as well quote Alice in Wonderland … ‘I think of 6 impossible things before breakfast.’ Personally … I have a love/hate relationship with the impossible. I truly understand that some things are impossible. Yup. Believe it or not … there are truly some of those out there. But I also have heard so many times ‘that is impossible’ only to find out it was … well … actually possible <assuming you spent some time breaking apart the impossible and putting it back together again in a way that is possible … kind of like the Rubik’s cube style of thinking> that I am quite cynical of impossible.

I also admit that I find impossible interesting … certainly more interesting than the possible. Likely my interest is they both, mixed together, can seen from two different and opposite perspectives.

Anyway.

Alice in Wonderland <and the Looking Glass> are outstanding examples of how to have serious nonsensical discussions on impossible. And it is a good reminder that while it may seem like senseless nonsense <wasted time> to us old folk … it is important serious nonsense to young people.

Alice <as in wonderland> is but a 7 year old in literature … but metaphorically she symbolizes all that the youth has to offer … she questions everything … all questions seemingly directed through an intrepid attitude and constantly using her intellect to solve problems. Oh. And she always speaks her mind.

In fact … the lesson she shares is in her growing belief that very few things “indeed were really impossible.”

A message all young people have at the forefront of their minds.

It is also a message most old people have in their mental waste can.

Just as all youth in today’s world … Alice is plucky, undaunted, and impervious to the dangers that may lie in world. These attributes typically lead the young to eagerly and curiously delve into a world seemingly challenged by being stuck only in what is possible. And … just as the young have an aggravating habit to do … Alice literally has to open the door for herself.

—————

Alice finds herself at the Duchess’s door and knocks, but to no avail. This exchange between Alice and the Frog – Footman follows:

“But what am I to do? ” said Alice.

“Anything you like,” said the Footman, and began whistling.

“Oh, there’s no use in talking to him,” said Alice desperately: “he’s perfectly idiotic!”

And she opened the door and went in.

————-

What a marvelous thought with regard to impossible … and possible.

Ah, so what am I to do? … anything you like.

The elder generation <the Frog doorman> doesn’t limit possibilities by suggesting impossibilities but rather opens up opportunities to what is possible … and empowers thinking. The answer opens up all possibilities for her. She begins to question following tried & true <accepted> beliefs and wondering by just following ‘rules’ it will get her nowhere and that it is within her power to do anything she wants … to achieve her desired results.

In this case?

She opens the door.

Once through the door?

Alice experiments as she realizes that all the traditional rules and ‘possibilities’ aren’t necessarily the only way to do things … and by experimenting not only does she make shit happen … she experiences new things <impossible things>.

Basically she is challenging what I believe philosophers call logical possibility and impossibility. I probably do not have this exactly right but this philosophical thought is something along these lines:

There are some things that we simply can’t imagine regardless of how hard we try, since they’re inherently contradictory or nonsensical. And then there are many other things that we improperly judge to be impossible for no other reason than that they don’t conform to our established ideas about how the world normally goes <Hume called these ‘matters of fact’>.

Matters of fact constitute one of two categories into which Hume sorted the things about which people make inquiries and exercise their reason. The other category is relations of ideas. Relations of ideas pertain to the truths of mathematics <2 + 2 = 4>, pure logic <frogs are frogs> and “every affirmation that is either intuitively or demonstrably certain.”

Therefore Hume suggests because the negation of any true statement of this sort is impossible it’s unimaginable <like 2 + 2 could add up to anything but 4>.

Anyway.

Imagination is essential to this type of thinking – Alice’s as well as the young. In many ways imagination is the same as … yet opposite at exactly the same time … reality. Just as the impossible is simply some warped version of possible.

This may all sound absurd … as does anything that seems impossible. Impossible rationally discussed remains in the impossible category … unfortunately … it is only when you think irrationally that impossible becomes … well … possible.

How absurd is that?

Ambrose Pierce wrote in the Devil’s Dictionary: Absurdity – A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion.

That which is deemed impossible is often simply a thought encapsulated within one’s own opinion.

Which is nonsensical in itself.

Making sense of the nonsensical is serious stuff. And it takes some imaginative thinking. Because, frankly, most nonsense about ‘impossible’ is actually provisional … circumstantial. In other words … change the circumstances and you can often discern a completely new & unexpected rule of cause and effect which ultimately makes the initial impossible … well … possible.

We often get frustrated by that which we expect just to … well … ‘be’ … as we challenge what we understand is the natural order of the world or the ‘accepted rules of what is … and what will be … if you follow this thinking.”

I know it is frustrating to me <but I like ‘impossible things’>.

All that said.

It makes the everyday world is frustrating to those who challenge impossible things because this type of thinking challenges most people’s desire to fit experiences in a logical framework where they can not only make sense of the relationship between cause and effect but also draw up a list of rules to insure impossible is clearly defined <and can be avoided>.

And, yet, a quest for true knowledge would suggest ignoring those ‘impossible rules’ as often as is feasible.

<that all made my head hurt>

Ok. Back to Alice as an example. Alice is on a quest for true knowledge. Wonderland <or youth> is a place where one can release inhibitions, to release preconceptions of ideas and to start really questioning to gain true wisdom and … I assume … true knowledge.

In its youthful insanity, in its complete separation from the world of adults, one can begin the long journey to true knowledge and defining truth in that impossible things are often quite readily possible.

Please note.

This is being written as a reminder to us old folk to think about this shit more often … and for my young readers who seem to post the

Making the possible from the impossible is a journey. With obstacles and twists and turns … and often some discussions that will make your head spin like the girl in The Exorcist and spew forth green stuff:

In fact … Alice shares a discussion like this:

“… I believe I can guess that,” (Alice) added aloud.

“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied, “at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same as ‘I get what I like’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

“It is the same thing to you,” said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember …

Whew. What a delightful episode in Wonderland … or, uhm, is this a business meeting I was in?

We old folk can twist words using preconceived thoughts to design impossibilities better than anyone. And the young struggle to unwind the tangled web of reasoning because … well … ‘impossible’ is a roadblock they aren’t willing to admit exists until they actually run into it.

The young rarely hesitate to discard preconceptions <those roadblocks> when they come across situations that seem to obviously refute them. In their youthful vim & vigor they display a consistent readiness to encounter reality on their own terms. An attribute, or character trait, essential in the discovery of truth … and the abolition of the impossible <we older folk have stated as truth>.

Obviously … I am overstating the youth versus older folk. Because we older folk don’t come up with our ‘that is impossible’ crap willy nilly. Our ‘matters of fact’ beliefs are based on what we have experienced … seen, smelled, touched, and tasted. It is impossible <oops … didn’t mean to use that word there> to observe a future objectively this way. It was Hume who suggested that the only reason we don’t think that the world will radically change tomorrow is that it hasn’t ever changed in this way before.

It was also Hume who believed all of our beliefs about ‘unobserved matters’ rest on the one key assumption that the future will resemble the past.

This may sound irrational … but there is no rational way of convincing someone they are wrong about this … or as a corollary … that tomorrow will be different.

You are stuck. Stuck in what is possible and the impossible behind some door you cannot see behind.

<back to Alice>

What does Alice do in this case? She literally opens the door for herself.

“What am I to do?”

The Frog Footman’s response … “anything you like.” The response opens up all possibilities.

She has the power to do anything she wants. She has the opportunity to define what is possible.

Possibilities are like opening a door that you have either been told will not open or you hesitate to open because of some preconceived notion <like in Alice’s case … she seeks permission>.

Anyway <here is the big close>.

The Duchess keenly observed, “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.”

The moral of this rant/observation/babble?

Geez.

I am not sure I am qualified to offer a moral to this story.

But maybe a thought on the impossible <or a couple of thoughts>.

First thought.

While there are certainly ‘impossible’ things … there are far more possible things than we believe. In fact … maybe the problem is that most of us struggle with the infiniteness of possibilities and therefore seek to expand the ‘impossible’ to decrease the possible <and make it slightly more palatable and less stressful>.

Sound nuts? No more nuts than arguing something is impossible only to find out somebody made it possible.

Second thought.

Logical thinking about impossibilities is actually illogical <if you want to think about it effectively>.

Logical thinking shouldn’t see possible or impossible but rather possible but inappropriate actions and decision.

I say this because we are ultimately confronted by an infinite number of possibilities. Sometimes we can resolve them through simple rules and yet sometimes we need additional rules to decide which of the simple rules to use.

And when completely unfamiliar situations arise we have to imagine new rules <or use what has been believed in the past> that include or discount the previous ones therefore either redefining rules or creating new ones <in a never ending cycle>. Using that kind of logic … the only mistakes we can truly make are in our application of rules … choosing one over another.

And maybe the only mistake is to believe something is impossible.

Third thought.

Impossible is all about fear. Yup. Because the possible is comfortable. It is the known. It is the pleasant company of friends in a warm comfortable room with your favorite drink in hand speaking of this and that. The impossible is the unexpected factor. It is … well … fear.

Fear as the sudden shattering discovery of a reality that while it may only decide to reveal itself at the moment … has always been present, simply unseen, in your warm comfortable room. It is a fear embodied in a crushing end of an ignorance … or simply an uncomfortable disruption of easy comfort.

Impossible means being swept into a vast emptiness of bottomless black depths of oceans where, as you are driven deep, you have the unpleasant certainty that your feet are far from any steady ground. It is a fear in which unlike a dream <or nightmare> you are unsure you will awake and see the familiar you left behind when you fell asleep.

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

================

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself.

You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

–

Little Crow

=================

Well.

I have written several times about how businesses fear doing what it truly takes to survive <for some good reasons & some bad reasons>.

I was reminded of this because I just saw an article that said “GE is broken. Fixing it will be long & difficult.”

My 1st thought?

They will fail to fix it just like Kodak failed to fix itself and … well … there is a long list of companies faced with ‘broken’ and failed to fix itself.

Oddly enough the reason is simple.

They weren’t willing to make the hard choices and were not willing to do what needed to be done.

==

“Stop discussing how serious the problem is, and get serious about finding an immediate solution to it.”

—–

Terry Mark

===============

This permits me to share my favorite business lesson. One from September 14th 1812.

The beginning of the lesson?

On September 14th 1812, the Russians set fire to Moscow in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops.

Yup.

The governor of Moscow herded out most of the Moscow residents and burned almost 80% of the city.

Just as a reminder to all non-historians…this began the demise of Napoleon’s reign. This action not only permitted Russia to defeat Napoleon by forcing a debilitating retreat back to France, but it also began the demise of the Grand Armee of France.

The point of this is… well … how far would you go to solve your business problem?

What happened on this date should make us all think about what we in the business world would sacrifice to win.

Look.

Do you imagine there was consensus in this Moscow discussion & decision? <hell no>

In fact.

Can you imagine the first guy who stood up and said “hey, I have an idea, how about we purposely burn Moscow so they can’t have it?”

<of course all said in Russian, probably after several liters of vodka, to the Czar and probably a couple of Cossack bodyguards … who have some very sharp swords>

Someone had some kahones.

And I hesitate to believe many people in today’s business world have that type of kahones.

The tough decisions are … well … tough.

Hard choices are … well … hard.

And they seem to get even tougher & harder when your survival is at stake.

—————

So would you be willing to burn your burn your business to win in the face of overwhelming odds?

——————

Far too often we try to keep our options open. Straddle the fence as it were. Keep some of what we value in place and do “radical” shit with other parts.

90% of the time that is simply mental masturbation.

90% of the time that is simply suggesting your Frankenstein strategy will help you survive … when what you actually need is a “6 million Dollar Man” strategy.

Sometimes you have to kill the structure to rebuild something better from the ashes.

I say all this because I believe more businesses, whether they believe their survival is at stake or not, should be sitting down and having the hard discussion … what ARE you willing to do to win?

Heck.

Maybe most importantly.

When you look at your situation do you even recognize how desperate your situation is?

<remember … someone in Russia recognized, and had the balls to say something about, the fact they were about to get their ass kicked>

I mention that because the business landscape is strewn with the wreckage of businesses that did not envision their own demise.

Next.

Think about ‘burning the city’ as a solution.

I believe we can all agree that someone “stepped out of the box” with a solution. Ok. They actually stepped ‘into the box’ and said … “let’s destroy the box.’

And let’s be clear.

I have to imagine neither of these points, as stated above, were popular, well-received nor accepted as a 100% agreement “so what we will do” type of moment.

Anyway.

Survival or not … one of the most difficult things a company can do is address their situation in the market. It is just not a fun discussion <usually lots of fingers get pointed in a variation of a circular firing squad>.

In general I believe most companies and businesses are pretty good at assessing their situation in the marketplace. I, for one, have been in a number of those types of meetings where everyone sits down and honestly assesses the difficult position they are in.

I also have been through too many meetings where that same business just isn’t willing to do what it takes to resolve the situation.

Hey.

I am not suggesting this is an easy discussion <but at least we don’t have Cossacks with really sharp swords standing around us while we are discussing what to do>.

So.

Are you willing to put 80% of everything you have up in flames to win?

I guess it depends on whether you believe the situation merits it. And that is a toughie for sure because we are certainly a country and group of optimists and in general we always believe there is a positive horizon. I mean … well … c’mon … if you believe there is some positive horizon then burning ‘the city’ isn’t necessary.

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

—

Lee Iacocca

=================

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

—–

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok.

Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 50something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole point we face today.

That said.

Let me spend a minute on old white men <and I have the right to do so … because I am one> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men have guided business to a level of so-called “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which were hollow attitudes and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business.

Now.

The other aggravating thing I am doing today is, while I could write this without making this point, everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again>.

He has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact … it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history … but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989 <as I noted in Salvation by Society> and we old white men could have eyed the arc and … well … stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

But old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Profit.

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed and <b> at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself … well … the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders it should feed society.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>.

Old white men hollowed out the middle. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this … but … suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. But effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

That is Trump in a nutshell.

ROI.

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

But old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind. Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & told 5 things they did & said that were racist in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publically espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. All the while they believed white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racists – racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Lastly.

Behavior.

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes

the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’ Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness … they simply propagated it.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

All that said.

These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better America’ from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’ but solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins.

I get angry.

I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to greatness. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point.

And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

And I am even angrier because we are now led by a hollow someone with a hollow platform, hollow plans, hollow skills, hollow dignity, hollow composure and no soul <that I can see>.

Look.

This can be solved. And it can be solved by … well … old guys like me.

==============================

“At any other time it’s better.

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

―

Dexter Palmer

===================

Old white men created the problems and … well … as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther … “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the problem in one fell swoop.

I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men) who have chafed in this hollow existence could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected.

This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point.

I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men.

‘… supplicate and implore the gods that prosperity may return to the wretched, and abandon the haughty.’

—-

Horace

============

“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.”

–

Ally McBeal

============

Ok.

In today’s world we seem to get caught up in the everyday grind of the story of the day. And, yes, most stories don’t reflect the best version of people & society.

What this means is that it can get fairly easy to step on to the slippery slope leading down to a belief we are in some shithole with no leader or steps to get out of it.

And what THAT means <at least to me> is that far too many people are abandoning hope and we desperately need some people to offer us some good ole pragmatic hope.

I say this because … as a reminder … above the entrance to hell <Inferno> in Dante’s Divine Comedy lies the words “abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Just to keep you updated on the story … Dante passes through the gate of Hell with this inscription which is the ninth (and final) line <“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”>:

————–

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

—————-

Ah.

And as another reminder of the tale … before entering hell, Dante and his guide (Virgil) see the Uncommitted. The uncommitted represent the souls of people who did nothing in Life.

Yup.

Nothing … neither for good nor evil … just nothing.

To be clear, no, I am not going to suggest everyone read Dante’s Divine Comedy <a tough read for anyone>.

But I will talk about hope <or the lack thereof> & being uncommitted.

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell.

Which isn’t good for anyone.

So the corollary to that is that I imagine those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get them out of that hell.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

And I guess about people who see unicorns.

Crazy? Sure. Sounds it.

But hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope … and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.

So.

This thought is actually grounded in an Ally McBeal episode. It, in its oft absurd way, showed how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days.

And while the episode was about the holidays I thought it was pretty relevant for any day <these days>.

What do I mean?

Well.

I was going to try and right some whizbang words but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog <sorry … forgot who> that seemed to create the perfect reason for why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable:

—————————

What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.

And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.

Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.

Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

—————————————–

Look.

That sounds … well … dark. But I elect to focus on the ‘light’ or the refusal to give up on hope portion. We need light and, to me, that is hope.

Because of that grind of stories we seem to face every day I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days.

Well.

Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.

And in this Ally McBeal episode someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn.

Well.

I would imagine all of us would take this with a grain of salt <if not believe the person had completely lost their mind>.

Yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.

You know?

It sounds a little crazy … and Whipper <the judge on Ally McBeal> was a quasi-nutcase on a show full of nutcases … but … you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe that they have seen a unicorn. It doesn’t mean they are nuts … people need to find hope however they can … some people just see the unicorn as hope.

And, frankly, (and one of the characters says this also) … why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake … all people want to be happy … and different people just get there in different ways.

And if someone elects to use a unicorn?

Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?

One of the characters in the episode says … “who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”

I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.

Supposedly people who see them share some of the unicorn’s traits … they may be lonely but with virtuous hearts.

Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the Ally McBeal episode Ally recalls one time when she touched a unicorn and the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn … but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) … “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”

Ok.

That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show.

If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for?

If we ask people to stop ‘believing in unicorns’ are we asking people to abandon Hope?

Whew.

C’mon.

The unicorn is a symbol of innocence and purity.

I know all of this sounds crazy <and it even looks crazy as I type it> … but … don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world?

In fact … Chinese mythology says the fact that a unicorn has not been seen in many centuries suggests that we are living in “bad” times. It will appear once again when the time is right and when goodness reigns.

So maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”

Regardless.

Maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world.

Also <and … boy … coming from a pragmatic realist like me … this is gonna sound really odd> … I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn … well … maybe in a weird way they give me hope.

Now that I have typed that … it reminds me of something else another character said:

——————-

And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame.

Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.

There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see.

And I think we miss that these days.

———————-

Look.

It’s a hard time for everyone these days but it is a particularly hard time for Hope & dreams these days.

Unfortunately far too many people re being encouraged to think of hope & dreams as some big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns.

Because of that we tend to dismiss the ‘unicorns & rainbows’ and tend to focus on a mission … that everything in our lives would instantly be perfect if only we could have ABC, or do XYZ.

Well.

Maybe it is that mission ‘focus’ that is really the fantasy … or, at minimum, part of the problem.

Maybe all those ‘missions’ are cramming up all our space that would have held dreams. And, really, this isn’t about going after your dreams but rather dreaming … and having hope … for something good and big and … well … maybe something that isn’t always tangible but intangible that lifts the heart and spirit.

I say all of this knowing that some readers will think this is wacky … but I also hope that people realize there is no right or wrong answer.

Being in the hope business is tricky, and tough, these days.

But.

In fact I almost wish I was in the used rainbow & hope business.

I think people would be willing to buy discount dreams and discounted rainbows. What I mean by that is people would be willing to set aside the ‘big’ dreams and maybe pick up someone else’s that have been discarded … and they still look pretty good to reality.

In the meantime … maybe I should look for some people who make wishes on rainbows and see unicorns and have not abandoned Hope <even if they have done so in some wacky way>.

I know it’s not really in my personal DNA to see unicorns.

And maybe that means I am not one of the lucky ones.

Maybe we need more people who can see unicorns.

Here is what I am absolutely sure we need.

I do know is that hope is a must.

If you don’t have it, you’ve got to find it … lapses in hope happen and are okay … but you have to find it however you must … and maybe that is why I agree with the judge in Ally McBeal … let those people have their unicorns … who am I to judge on how someone holds on to hope.

Regardless.

Ally McBeal was an odd tv show.

But several episodes are must see for everyone.

This is one.

It may just remind you that seeing unicorns isn’t as wacky as you thought it was.

It may just remind you that abandoning Hope is worse than seeing unicorns.

It may just remind you that being uncommitted to Hope, and the things associated with it, is actually worse than being in Hell.

Look.

To me … no hope = hell.

Therefore we should seek our better angels to guide people out of hell and inner angels to keep us from hell.

==========

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

—

Martin Luther King, Jr.

================

And, maybe most importantly, by abandoning Hope we have absolved ourselves of one of our greatest responsibilities – the next generation.

If we abandon hope we then fail to provide hope to our young people … and … well … are we not simply encouraging them to enter the gate of hell?

And if we abandon hope and end up doing nothing do we not run the risk of becoming one of the Uncommitted?

Dante was a smart guy. Gave us a lot to think about. Oddly … so did Ally McBeal. We can learn a lot about Hope in a lot of different places … including unicorns.

We need Hope. For if we abandon hope it is quite possible our future is destined to walk thru the gate of hell.

“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

Well.

The number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok.

Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure.

Not all things.

Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck?

Whew.

Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay.

Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value.

They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown, that new inevitably outshines old … and that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior.

To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

–

Émile Zola

=================

All that said.

I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact.

I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations.

Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people.

Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look.

All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net.

I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new.

Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger.

And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’ … people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

If you can offer them the same with new things, old things lose their luster.

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better. Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect.

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.”

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.”

And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note:<a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way.

These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new.

This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts.

This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important.

It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label.

And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects.

The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said.

I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle?

Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas.

This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation … which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s bullshit.

The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into.

I say that with two thoughts in mind:

something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway.

In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked.

This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this.

New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something.

I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it.

Conventions train us to do the conventional.

I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar.

All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.”

Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of.

The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless.

I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success.

I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness.’

That the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>.

Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard.

All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’ I get a lot of cocked heads as they think about it a little.

It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives.

The future is an inﬁnite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

–

Howard Zinn

====

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

=========================

Well.

I get a little concerned, on occasion, that in the business world kindness is considered a negative thing.

Simplistically there is a general impression that if you are kind, or nice, you are not tough — or tough enough to assume the more difficult responsibilities.

At this attitude’s worst dimension it breeds a belief ‘assholes win’ therefore … ‘be an asshole.’

To be clear. There is a shitload of empty rhetoric of ‘playing nice’ and ‘team playing’ but that is from an overall organizational perspective … not a management track perspective. For on a parallel track to the ‘be kind/pay well’ is the “the toughest fighters are the leaders.”

Now.

Aspects of that latter point are true but it seems like everyone forgets to add onto that thought … “but that doesn’t mean you need to be so at the expense of kindness.”

Once again, in the business world, it seems like we are encouraged to believe in the completely fucked up thinking of “one thing and one thing only.”

When asked the question … “What is the one most important attribute of a great manager?” … answer — “ability to make the tough decision” <implication: you need to be tough above all>.

And while I could argue whether I am exactly right on what I am now going to share, the reality is that one of the most important attributes of a great manager is actually “ability to make the tough decision without losing sight of kindness.”

One attribute can actually be a combination of things and not just “one.” For some absurd reason we tend to believe that people will be torn between these two opposing forces. That we will naturally gravitate toward one or the other and, therefore, be battling what we believe is right rather than effectively doing the job.

Well.

It is a battle when you are younger in business and is a battle worth fighting <even if you get it wrong on occasion>. Just a in military training the more experience I get the more likely I will win the battle the next time <assuming I survive>. The point is that if you make the bold choice to incorporate kindness from day one <which no one seems to be pragmatically encouraging young people to do so> by the time you become a real manager and leader it just becomes something you do without thinking about it.

Yeah.

I did just use the world “bold.”

I did so because in today’s world everyday kindness, and done so consistently, is both a bold pioneering statement in a “eat the little fish” world. And, yet, this bold personal decision can offer some amazing rewards.

Several years ago I had to offer ’20 things about Me’ to a company and within it I shared this as my #1 thing:

My grandfather

The greatest man I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. A simple kind man who honored integrity, kindness and truth above all. He taught me more about me, life and how to live Life <without overtly teaching> than anyone I have ever known. He remains my North Star for my life. I can only hope to be half the man he ever was … but at least he gave me something to aim for.

It was in that same piece I also shared his:

Spike Lee

I was in my early 30’s in the audience when I heard Spike Lee say these words about his films … “I recognize everything I do impacts how people think … and even what they do … I have a responsibility every time I create anything.” It changed how I viewed what I did and actually how I did it moving forward. Basically … I began assuming responsibility.

So.

What the heck does my white conservative non bombastic grandfather have to do with Spike Lee?

Choice.

Yep.

Choice.

Deciding to be successful and be kind is a choice. And a big choice given the kind of shit they try and teach you far too often in business these days. Assuming responsibility for kindness … well … impacts everything. It is one of those ‘ripple affect’ type choices – with benefits in the present and in the future. Spike Lee reminded me ‘choice’ needs to be represented in the never-ending onslaught of ‘present moments’ and my grandfather reminded me of the ultimate reward for actually living that kind of Life.

By the way I am not suggesting “manufacturing kindnesss’ or ‘purposefully creating kindness.’ But I do tend to believe you can affect your kindness by consciously deciding that kindness can win an that kindness does not diminish effectiveness in business.

The truth is that Kindness wins if you simply believe it can get injected into … well … discrete moments of now.

Uh oh.

This means that kindness is driven not only by awareness but some common sense and clarity … and there is no secret code other than making the choice.

Shit.

No secret code.

Unfortunately … without a code I have to offer the unfortunate truth about kindness … you have to do something, or actually be consistently kind, to actually be kind. What I am talking about is make choices. Choose to be kind and act with kindness.

Yeah.

You almost have to defiantly choose to choose to be kind.

Aa well as choose to live in defiance of all that is not kind.

Look.

I am not suggesting you shouldn’t call someone a jackass if they truly are a jackass, or be harshly constructively critical if that is what will get through to someone or even make the hard call where people get pissed.

Sometimes business demands you to portray some dick-like qualities. It does so not because it encourages you to actually be a dick, or a jack ass, but organizational inertia is incredibly difficult to address and, yes, sometimes you have to kick some ass to get everyone moving.

So maybe you need to selectively be a jack ass.

=============================

“Got to mind the delicate social nuances when you inform some poor fellow that he’s a dumb motherfucker.”

————

Locke Lamora

================

And, yet, you can be a jack ass without sacrificing kindness.

What I am suggesting is if you carry kindness with you … and offer kindness as a thread of all that you do … well … kindness can win and does win. In other words you can still make the tough management decisions, the hard choices, be a little bit f a jack ass on occasion and, yet, in the end everyone will see that you did the right thing ‘well.’ in other words you can win the right way instead of just winning.

I will tell you one thing that I know for sure. While being consistently incorporating kindness into your business Life may seem like a bold pioneering choice I would suggest that by doing so … well … it offers some comfortable familiarity <we remember how nice it feels>. There is a small sense of satisfaction; let’s call it “added value”, in everything you do if kindness is injected into the decisions and behavior. It is almost like you have baked a cake and someone has placed your favorite icing on top when they give it to you.

If you do it right, no one really notices that you didn’t put the icing on the cake but rather they did.

Anyway.

Kindness does matter … even in business. and kindness can be done without costing you promotions, effectiveness and … well … character. And isn’t that last thing the most important anyway?

You’ve been voting a lot longer than any of us. You’ve had a say in how our culture and society and economy and political system have been shaped. The state of affairs Sanders is describing has been evolving over several decades. Surely the great wisdom you possess saw most of this coming, the income inequality, the wars for profit, etc. Could it be that we’re easy to rage against because we’re younger and poorer and more vulnerable than you? Could it be that you should be raging against the person you see in the mirror every morning and the generation you associate with every day, but it’s too hard to face the misdeeds of your age group, so you project blame onto us?

—-

A Millennial commenting online

=============

“… whether you know it or not, you’re offspring are already screwed and it not because of Trump.

Lets be honest here… The kids are 20+ trillion dollars in debt. No middle class left. No economic growth. No jobs. A country infiltrated by illegal aliens. Murder rates skyrocketing. Our infrastructure is decimated. Islamic extremist threaten us daily. Russia and China flexing their military muscle and North Korea and Iran on the verge of nuclear weaponry.

And you’re worried about Trump becoming president.

When I see posts such as yours I think to myself how in the world with all the news sources at everyone finger tips can people be so blind to what is right in front of them.

Ignorance is a bigger threat to us than Trump can ever be.”

—-

a white Boomer commenting online

========

Carlo Rosselli:

“I had a house: they destroyed it. I had a magazine: they suppressed it. I had ideas, dignity, an ideal: for these I was sent to prison. I had friends: they killed them.”

====================

I am a white guy.

An old white guy.

I don’t loathe being white and I certainly don’t believe simply being white makes one an evil person … certainly doesn’t increase your odds of being ‘gooder’ or ‘badder’ simply because the color of your skin.

But sometimes, okay, more often than not … I write with some sense of disdain for the older generation of white guys <particularly in business>.

We seem to be, or at least becoming, an angry generation.

Angry at the naïve young people.

Angry at some ill-defined establishment.

Angry at minorities <who appear to be getting a better break than us>.

Angry at women <who used to be more supportive of us>.

Angry at other countries <because, dammit, we are the best and if they improve we don’t look at ‘best’>.

Angry at change.

Angry at no change.

Shit.

We are just angry enough at the world we will take selective bits of misinformation and get so angry we start getting angry at a world that just isn’t as bad as we are angry about.

But what is most concerning is that this anger is beginning to extend like a big amorphous blob in every direction. In other words … we are just angry people in an angry world looking for anyone and everywhere to focus our anger.

—

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

—

Some of this amorphous blob-like anger is explainable.

It CAN be easy to feel marginalized when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel less respected when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel like everything was better when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to remember a country that wasn’t obese, a country that did not struggle to educate the young or even a country in which there seemed to be an extreme demand for guns for everyone.

Yeah.

I could point out, as an old white guy, what I call the silent minority <because they seem to be REALLY angry>. This silent minority is a slice of white America who has watched from the stagnant sidelines of Life as initiative after initiative is created to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past for women, the LBGT community, the blacks, Asians and … well … anyone non-white.

It may sound disingenuous to suggest this is a legitimate concern when white Americans currently have a majority-minority relationship in the country.

But this is a real minority within the majority who has real anger <or maybe strong frustrations> all compounded by some fear/anger mongerers who encourage a sense that “real Americans” are being crowded out.

This anger creates a critique of … well … everyone and everything … threaded through with an unhealthy thread of paranoia driven conjecture driven theories.

But it sure does seem like everyone is angry and angry about something or someone.

Well.

Okay.

The uber rich people aren’t angry … they just don’t care.

But everyone else is.

The aspiring uber rich people are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <going down> income are people angry at everyone.

The lower middle <who are probably hard working &pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> people are angry at the aspiring uber & uber.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes people are angry at government.

People are angry at work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability> but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope. And get angry.

In addition.

We older folk feel some anger as it seems like the workplace is outplacing us, and our skills, faster than ever before. Workplace generation gaps used to pit older veterans against young rookies. Now it is a weird digital driven world, where thinking and deductive skills seem to have less value, and generation gaps in the workplace give a lot of people the sense that they are falling behind and must struggle to avoid being left out.

People are angry at home.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it. We are angry about lack of money, lack of time and lack of perceived control over our own Life.

People are angry because our hope is being fucked with <hope for a better life … hope for better fairness>.

People are happy in life when they think it’s fair … or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.” Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’ … we are just average Joes & Joettes <everyday schmucks>.

And you know what?

Most people, like me, are not angry about being an everyday schmuck … we are okay with it … but we do want to feel like that if by some miracle we were the best, if but for one critical moment, that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively … if we see few glimpses of opportunity … well … we get angry.

This may be unrealistic <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average everyday schmucks.

People are angry at Life. While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you … at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>.

People have a larger sense of anger about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over and cannot do anything about. This creates an anger focus in that we start looking for someone and anyone to blame for whatever it is that is making us angry <I would argue the foundation of all his anger is that we are having our hopes and dreams screwed with>.

People are angry because optimism seems to be in the purview of only the naive fools. We get angry because optimism is a conscious belief … almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be. if we perceive someone placing obstacles in between our optimistic thinking and the tangible cognitive attachment … well … we get fucking angry.

People are angry as they teeter between an anger that we are currently faced with the tragic ongoing horror show of President Trump ‘as a cut price Mussolini and demigod of the intellectually challenged’ and an anger that President Trump, the self-proclaimed change agent, has become mired in his own self proclaimed swamp.

People are angry that the US now consists of a shitload of small towns with shuttered shops, high unemployment in selective geography, low wages, increasing dependency on government support, free food, soup kitchens. Fifty million below the poverty line. Tens of millions without health insurance and those with coverage, struggling to pay their premiums … and 50% of Americans cannot even afford a vacation.

People are angry that the shining light of democracy is quickly taking on the appearance of a kind of banana republic … or a well developed “Somalia with guns, hamburgers, obesity and better drainage.”

As for me?

While I was not a huge Clinton fan I get a little angry that a Hillary Clinton message grounded in “love, togetherness and kindness” was trumped by some asshat talking about “destruction, despair and winning is all that matters” … an asshat who publicly stated at a podium in front of a crowd of cheering people that he had no idea what Clinton meant by wanting to make America whole again.

All that said.

We are an angry people in an angry world.

Anger sometimes makes us cling to obvious untruths rather than face the truth — about ourselves, about society, about reality — and therefore we ignore the real truths which would lead to the well needed fundamental difficult changes necessary to diminish our anger.

Personally, I believe 99% of anger is wasted energy.

However.

On occasion, anger, if causing some self-refection, can create a sense of reflective responsibility, i.e., what have I done to create his environment of anger?

Is there is a real issue that has been raised … and needs to be addressed?

We are an angry group these days and, yet, we seem to remain at least minimally functional. The term “new normal” or “normalizing the current attitude” gets thrown around a lot these days. So much so that it … well … just seems normal <or maybe we just cannot define abnormal well enough to deal with it>. And that is what concerns me as I reflect as an old white guy … functioning in an angry world as the new normal.

People have legitimate reason to be angry … but we also have legitimate reasons to assume some personal responsibility for the legitimate parts as well as legitimate fundamental changes to solve our legitimate anger.

I will end this by suggesting anger is most often driven by a clash of ideas … even if you want to argue there is rampant ignorance <you can still have ideas even if you are ignorant>.

A country is always wracked by conflict where the discussion can be raucous, or whispered, at different times in history … but it resides in all times nonetheless.

Look.

America is constantly morphing. The clash of ideas is actually what makes America great. Its lack of simplicity is what makes it great.

Therefore it is actually the constant conflict that makes it great.

Think of the country as a number of tectonic plates constantly shifting and crashing into each other with earthquakes and trembles and ultimately soaring mountain ranges … and sinking islands. Those tectonic plates are the fractured sections of class, culture, race, income levels, social status, generational norms, educational attainment and, well, even individual state identity.

But possibly the largest tectonic civilization plates are what was, what is & what will be. The tectonic plates of time and everything that resides upon them … the mountain ranges of attitudes & desires and the valleys of “what I have and what I believe is mine to keep” <the latter can be material or mental>.

Anger is only good if it creates some change. It is an angry world and we should be using this anger to solve the … well … anger.